[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: now out in paperback
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: now out in paperback
- From: Annalisa Aguilar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:44:14 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: mailman.ucsd.edu; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; mailman.ucsd.edu; dmarc=none action=none header.from=unm.edu;
- In-reply-to: <CAG1MBOEBWacWRyWqGagm9yRzW-5WNkiAZ9ZQrUXzJCA1+3_kXA@mail.gmail.com>
- List-archive: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l>
- List-help: <mailto:email@example.com?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l.mailman.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-subscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-l>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CO1PR02MB175A8FB999E77379A3B5129A4350@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <email@example.com> <CO1PR02MB175AC79973BB11648080E77A4320@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CO1PR02MB175952EC5273E508518DE7AA4330@CO1PR02MB175.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>, <CAG1MBOEBWacWRyWqGagm9yRzW-5WNkiAZ9ZQrUXzJCA1+3_kXA@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Sender: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Thread-index: AdA5rCjWuiumU/SgTTaV7Wk/O8d5/wAClnVXABuIEqAAF5IMhAAcANTgAALhcgAAHWuL5Q==
- Thread-topic: [Xmca-l] Re: now out in paperback
Thank you very much for the addendum from Haenen (what is the name of the book?). I did not know this about Vygotsky.
I could see how Peter might sense indifference, because in a sense, according to this affliction, Vygotsky was.
Is this not sort of the inversion of what we learned in the Notes on Blindness video, in which John Hull talks about remembering the photograph better than in-person percepts at least in regard to remembering the faces of his family members?
Does this mean that Vygotsky couldn't read images (is this correct?) What isn't clear from your quote is if he could recognize the object in the representation (as a whole image) or could he only see aspects of it?
This reminds me of a musician who can play a guitar beautifully because of technical mastery, but doesn't hear the melody, and so cannot enjoy the tune.
Anyway for me the plot thickens!